Letter to Bishop of Chester, Postscript
A POSTSCRIPT To the precedent Letter, for further ſatis faction to the Reader touching the publication of it, and ſome other points of moment that appertain unto it.
THe Letter it ſelfe hath ſhewed upon what occaſion it was written, and why it is now publiſhed I ſhall render the reaſon, and this it is; Since my “Which was Ianu. 13. of this yeer cucrent. 1640.comming to London, I was credibly informed, that a copy of it was brought hither (by what means I know not) prepared for the Preſſe, and that (either with or without my conſent) it would preſently be printed. If ſo, ſaid I, I had rather make uſe of mine owne power over it, for ſetting of it forth, in the way of truth and faire daylight, than ſuffer it by ſtealth to come abroad, (and like a non licet Pamphlet) to wander about, without due correction, and a lawfull paſſe.
Beſides, by mine owne edition of it, I may make uſe of a fit opportunity to preſent unto the Reader ſome particulars, wherein he may deſire a further ſatisfaction, than the Letter it ſelfe (if it ſhould come alone) could bring unto him: which I ſhall ſort under theſe ſeverall heads.
1. The Biſhops Anſwer returned unto my Letter.
2. The late verſes written as an Elegy upon the pulling downe of that ſtone-work, againſt which my Letter was directed.
3. Such diſcourſes as ſince have beene publiſhed in favour of Altars, and bowing towards them, though more for the name, than for the thing it ſelfe.
1. For the firſt Particular, What anſwer the Biſhop returned to my Letter when he had read it.
That being the anſwer not of his hand, but of his tongue, and that many yeeres ſince I would not take upon me now to report it, without a new recourſe unto him, to rectifie my remembrance thereof, leſt (at ſuch a diſtance of time) I ſhould miſtake his words or meaning) and therefore the laſt “Ianu. 23. 1640.week, having told him (in effect) what I have related (touching the publiſhing of this Letter) I deſired him to informe me what I ſhould ſay (as from him) concerning that offenſive ſtructure, which was commonly called and condemned by the name of an Altar. This ſaid he.
When I cauſed it to be ſet up, I proteſt I had no thought of an Altar; and I meant it only for a repoſitorie to the Preacher (in the uſe of a table) in that place; which though it were ſomewhat neer the Quire, was not uſed but as a Conſiſtory Court, and where (upon removall of the ſeats to the weſt end of the Cathedrall) the materialls (whereof it was made) were found ready for ſuch a purpoſe: but hearing great offence was taken at it, I gave order for it to bee taken downe, which is done accordingly.
Whereupon followeth the ſecond Particular, concerning the late verſes, written as an Ironicall Elegy upon that occaſion, whereof the Title is this.
A ſad complaint of the late Altar newly erected, and prepared for a new ſacrifice, by the Lord Biſhop of Cheſter, in the upper end of the Chancell of the Cathedrall Church of Cheſter, in the new intended Chappell there, newly pulled downe (as it was high time.)
Then follow the verſes, whereof I will ſelect ſuch and ſo many as may bee a convenient introduction to diſcover the difference betwixt the ground of truth, and the deſcant of wit and fancie raiſed upon it: and they are theſe,
I, who from thoſe faire banks of Tyber came,
A ſtranger here by nature and by name;
I, whom the reverend Father here had placed,
And with the name of Altar had me graced;
I, in whoſe ſacred preſence all men know
Every ſincere devoted knee did bow
At their demure approaching:—
Am now become the object of all ſcorne,
My members and materials rent and torne;
Come holy Fathers of the Convocation,
See and lament my wofull deſolation.
Come Deanes and Prebends (in your ſurplice clad)
From whoſe examples I much reverence had.
Loud Petty Canons come roare out your cryes,
Make up your Chorus, in ſad Elegies,
For my departure, ſtick not now to lend
Your tears to whom you once your knees did bend;
Come conducts, Choriſters, and every lad,
Belch out your ſighes, and ſcreame as you were mad.
I like it well enough that as Elijah mocked the Prieſts of Baal, 1. Kings 18 27. So that all that ſet up Altars for Idolatry, or that Superſtitiouſly bow unto them, ſhould have thier blind devotion played upon, both in Proſe and verſe, and ſo be ſacrificed to Deriſion, and therefore ſince I ſee the compoſer of this Poem ſheweth a great deal of zeale againſt that, which my ſoul hateth aſwell as his, and from which my body is as free as his can bee (for I never yet bowed head or knee, either to or towards an Altar or holy table) I will not call it (as ſome would do) a libell. But yet leaſt the reader ſhould ſuppoſe, that all this ſmoak (or if any will call it a perfume, becauſe they reſent it with delight, I will not contend with them) hath the fire of hiſtoricall truth to produce and maintaine it: I conceave it to be conſonant both to good conſcience, and neceſſary diſcretion, to make a true, but briefe report, in what place the Altar ſtood, and what reſpect it had when it was erected.
The place was the ſame which was formerly (for many yeeres) uſed for the Conſiſtory Court, it is the utmoſt roome of the Cathedrall eaſtward, betwixt which and the Quire, there is an intermediate ſpace (more large than it) which is imployed to no particular uſe, but lieth open for paſſage round about it. In this place (for ought I can learne) there was never any exerciſe of Religion ſince the Churches reformation by Queene Elizabeth: and here it ſtood ſo farre from all reſpect of Adoration, that I verily beleeve it never had ſo much as one Cap or Congey from any one, unleſſe perhaps ſome ſimple Papiſt (ſeeing it ſo neglected) in pure pitty rather than in piety, beſtowed, as an almes, ſome part of his ſuperabundant Superſtition upon it; which yet I cannot think was often done (if done at all) becauſe the paſſage to it was uſually lockt up, except in time of publick prayer and ſermon: Nor can I imagine the Biſhop ever meant (whatever other meaning hee might have) that any one ſhould bow unto it or ſuperſtitiouſly direct their Adoration towards it.
And I cannot but conceive (at leaſt of ſuch as have beene long and ſoundly trained up in the truth of our Proteſtant Doctrine againſt the abſurdity of Popiſh Tranſubſtantiation) that their curious and conſtant homage towards the Altar (as too many phraſe it) hath more affinity with Hypocriſie than with Superſtition.
They that have obſerved ſome late unpleaſing paſſages (betwixt the Biſhop and me) will marvell that I make this Apology for him, and I confeſſe there is ſome cauſe to move them to it; but more, as I conceive, to move me to this.
1. For that (for the moſt part of mine entercourſe with him) I have had more experience of favourable than of offenſive dealing from him, and if that which is beſt and moſt ſhould not more affect me than the contrary, I ſhould contradict at once both my naturall diſpoſition, and Chriſtian profeſſion.
2. For the late difference betwixt us (which ſome may think I ſhould not eaſily digeſt) I take it for a matter of too ſmall moment, to bee the root of a ſetled miſconceit; for it was but about the ſetting downe of a cypher without a figure (The choyce of a Clark for the Convocation at York.)
And for that we were thus farre agreed, that hee was unwilling to be croſt in a ſecond choyce of me eſpecially having beene uſed to ſway the Election himſelfe, and it may be alſo pre-ingaged to ſome other (who might have more minde and better leaſure than I had, to ſpend time and to take paines to little purpoſe) and I was loath againe to be deſigned the Clergies unprofitable ſervant in that kinde, wherein (unleſſe I did overdoe the duty of my place if ſo I could doe any thing and put a double task upon my ſelfe, by giving attendance by turnes on both Convocations) I might be ſure to returne my talent in a Napkin, Luke 19.20.with no more profit by it, than he that hath laboured for the wind, Eccleſ. 5.16.
3. The third and laſt particular is concerning ſuch diſcourſes, as (ſince my Letter was pend) have beene publiſhed in print, in favour of Altars and bowing towards them, though they ſay more for the name, than for the thing it ſelfe; whereof, though much hath beene ſaid, a little may ſuffice to ſet us right in that point.
For that, firſt I take it to be a very good and ſafe rule of Religious worwip (and eſpecially pertinent to the ſtate of the Evangelicall Church) which the Prophet Eſay delivereth in theſe words; In that day ſhall a man look to his maker, and his eyes ſhall have reſpect to the holy one of Iſrael, and he ſhall not look to the Altars, the work of his hands, neither ſhall hee reſpect that which his fingers have made, Eſay 17. ver. 7, 8.
Secondly, though ſome mens ſlighting both of the Lords Table, and Temple, required a remedy to keep off contempt, both from them and the exerciſes of Religion belonging to them, and that uſually the manner of Reformers of irreligious errours, is to doe as Gardeners doe with crooked twigs (which is to bend them as farre the contrary way, not that they ſhould remaine crooked on either hand, but that afterwards they might reſt in a right conſiſtence) yet there was great care to be taken in this caſe (which ſome writers for Altars ſeeme not to regard ſo much as they ought) that the remedy of Prophaneſſe might not be ſuch as might foment ſuperſtition, a ſore which in ſome conſtitutions doth eaſily turne to the Gangreen of Idolatry, and is ſo much the more dangerous, as there be the more ſubtle and ſedulous agents to infect men with it; and as they that are moſt infected, will the leſſe acknowledge their owne diſeaſe, or be more unwilling to admit of the meanes to cure them of it: In this reſpect I much feared that what ground was gotten in this way againſt the Prophane would bee eaſily turned to the advantage of ſuch as were Popiſh.
Thirdly, bee it the Ancient Fathers as is alleadged (by divers who have written for Altars) doe frequently call the Communion Table by the name of Altar (as they uſe the word Prieſt and Levite, and other tearms of conformity to the old Teſtament) yet if they were now alive againe, and obſerved how their language hath beene miſapplyed to the promotion of Popery, they would (I beleeve) no more approve of ſuch expreſſions, as formerly were frequent in their diſcourſes, then we do now think it fit to uſe the word Tyrant for a King, though anciently all Kings were called ſo, even Iupiter himſelfe, by “foreign.Homer and others, when they meant to ſpeak very honourably of him, or to call our Biſhops Popes, which was a common title to them all in former times, when the Biſhops of Rome were better men, than ſince they made it peculiar to themſelves.
Fourthly, Though the formes of Speech, and Phraſes touching Altars and Geſtures, were tendred unto us in the name of the fathers (as in Altar treatiſes we finde them cited) very few would look ſo far back as to their times, for direction in Religion, but to moſt (no doubt) the next precedent Age would be the Horizon of their holy obſervation: for it is the manner of moſt, both Papiſts, and other ignorant people, when they hear …y thing of the old religion, to fancy none other then that of their Popiſh Anceſtors, which in reſpect of true venerable and orthodox Antiquity, is in no other ſence, to be called the old Religion, then Almanacks out of date are called old Almanacks becauſe they have a precedency of time though far ſhort if old or Ancient before that of the yeer current.
Fifthly, Albeit it be lawfull, to call the Communion table by the name of an Altar (for which terme there hath) been but too much ſtriving of late) yet commonly to call it ſo (as ſome do) to put the better title which is the Lords Table out of uſe is not to be liked, much leſſe to bring it into diſgrace: as he would have done, who pleading for the name Altar, againſt the Book called The holy table name & thing, Trapeza in greek ſignifyeth a Table.had a mind and meaning to call his anſwer to it, Trapezuntius vapulans 1. The table man beaten: but upon better advice he bethought himſelf of a fitter title for his treatiſe.
Sixthly, Since the Papiſts never, or very rarely uſe the word Table, but Altar both out of too much devotion too it, and too great diſ-affection of us, & our Church, it would be convenient that we were (at leaſt) more ſpareing in the uſe of the word Altar, and Generally more accuſtomed our ſelves to the name Table, the rather becauſe ſince we have ſeemed in tearmes, and ſome other wayes, to comply with them, more then in former times, they have multiplied in number and advanced in confidence: And it would become our humane Prudence and Proteſtant zeal (for to be a Proteſtant is not to be a lukewarme Laodicean but a fervent profeſſor of ſound faith, and Religion) to cut of all occaſions of their increaſe and encouragement, and that they may abate in both, to do what lawfully we may for contracting of their number, and correcting of their humour, and ſpirit, that (notwithſtanding their deſires and deſignes) we may ſtill be happy in a conſtant enjoyment of truth, and peace.
Laſtly Comparing what I have written in the precedent letter to the Biſhop, with that I have read in the diſcourſes for Altars ſet forth in print (ſince the date thereof though I have intentively peruſed them, I find nothing in them for Altars (either in reſpect of name, or thing, or uſe) to alter my judgement for the negative Tenet nor to refute the reaſons, which I have produced to prove it, ſo that to this Poſtſcript (to the Reader) I may ſincerely ſubſcribe (as “Mr. Ch. H.a learned friend did to me when I requeſted him to preſent my letter to the Biſhop)
Yours uſque ad Aras & contra Aras. JOHN LEY. From my lodging at the ſigne of the Fountaine in Pauls Church Yard. January 27. 1640.
End of the text · John Ley, Letter to Bishop of Chester (1641)